User talk:Lembit Staan/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Invitation to join Women in Red

		Thank you for creating several articles on women and their works over the past few weeks. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota. You might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap. If you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, just 17.37% of English Wikipedia's biographies). Our priorities for January: Prisoners Fashion designers Geofocus: Great Britain and Ireland #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Tsarist autocracy

Could you place the following text back this anonymous contributor removed? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tsarist_autocracy&diff=746461868&oldid=744634240

Also, it is mindbaffling how this article still exists, given the repeated discussions on the talkpage which all point at the poor quality of research by which the article hangs together (barely). 2001:1C02:1907:9500:5961:8A5E:9CFA:3884 (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@2001:1C02:1907:9500:5961:8A5E:9CFA:3884: I agree the article is a mess, but the text you want to restore IMO does not have direct relevance to the article subject. Also the text "have pointed to a racial element in the concept" -s Wikipedian's interpretation of sources, i.e., a piece original wikipedian's research inadmissible in wikipedia. 17:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

AS I understand it, the original writer of the piece pointed at some authors that highlighted figures, like Kennan and other US Cold War historians/policy makers, who basically said that the 'concept' or 'model' is part of the Russian race/ethnicity. This was the argument of the authors, not so much of the original writer here. At least, that's how I read the references. But again, I find that a great deal of the sources there could be dismissed as irrelevant and non-specialist. But hey, what do you expect, when everyone who knows his way around with a keyboard and google thinks he's an academic specialist? Googling some terms, not reading the actual works to understand why the terms are mentioned, not grasping the debate, apparently stands for encyclopedic integrity here. 2001:1C02:1907:9500:6979:A7F1:7DD3:F83C (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

"Hands of God/Heaven"

Hi, I will be thankful if you will stop deleting word "Heaven" from that article. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Vasilisa

Hi, would you mind un-blanking the dab page so we can at least finish it out properly before deciding what to do with it? Many thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Might be of interest to you

Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy#Vote.--APS^talk 19:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

Hello, I'm Albin Schmitt. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:"Polish_death_camp"_controversy#Edits_by_Icewhiz that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. APS^talk 20:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Dnipro edits

Don't revert my edits, please. Check the format of edits, I changed only the links, not the showed name of the city. Ales sandro (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Croatian census

Please note that Croatian census is an official position and your opinion is a private opinion, meaning Original Research (OR) in Wiki Riadder (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Riadder: -- Please provide a citation that vlach are "officially recongized minority". Did you realy understand what I wrote in you talk page? Staszek Lem (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, persistent vandalism. I fixed the SPI. Give any input there, thanks.--Zoupan 00:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

You edit to "Polish death camp" controversy

Hello, I'm R9tgokunks. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 23:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Your reversions to "Polish death camp" controversy

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 00:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Raróg and CD Projekt Logo

Hi. You removed my information on Raróg used in CD Projekt logo claimning it was an false statement... but it was not. See the Polish version of the news: "W dniu 14 maja br. Raróg staje się podstawą nowej identyfikacji wizualnej studia [...]" SMiki55 (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@SMiki55: My edit summary says "(rm false statement, based on misreading of the source)" . The statement of the band says that their logo is Northern Cardinal. The band quote further says: "red color <...> we share with one more being: Rarog". (the stricken text is directly from Polish. English language version is even more blunt: "The colour, cardinal RED, is something that connects it with another bird <...>Rarog". I.e. that Rarog is logo is a fantasy of the author of the article. The logo itself has nothing to do with traditional visual representations of Rarog (of course, they are fantasies themselves :-). Staszek Lem (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The sentence "W dniu 14 maja br. Raróg staje się podstawą nowej identyfikacji wizualnej studia [...]" (On May 14th the Raróg becomes the basis for a new visual identification of the studio [...]) clearly refers to the logo as Raróg IMHO. SMiki55 (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@SMiki55: IMHO I clearly wrote this is an (uneducated) opinion of the person who wrote the article, not of the band. The image is clearly NOT Rarog as everybody understands Rarog. Who do you think more reliable source: the article writer or the band themselves who clearly wrote another bird? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Bayesian

An article that you have been involved in editing—Bayesian—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Continuation War

Thx for the edits at Winter War! Mind looking at the lede of Continuation War as well? I recently built it up for GA nomination and it's going through a GOCE c/e now, but could use more opinions on streamlining the lede. Manelolo (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk:"Polish_death_camp"_controversy#RFC_on_"misnomer"

Cześć Staszek Lem! Just a brief note to say that I have closed a Request for Comment you initiated, at Talk:"Polish_death_camp"_controversy#RFC_on_"misnomer". Miłego dnia, Fish+Karate 13:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Flag

Hi, Staszek Lem.
I've noticed that you are an AfC reviewer but don't yet have the New Page Reviewer flag. Would you please consider heading over to PERM and requesting it? (check the flag requirements HERE)
As part of a larger plan to increase cooperation between New Page Patrol and Articles for creation, we are trying to get as many of the active AfC reviewers as possible under the NPR user flag (per this discussion). Unlike the AfC request list, the NPR flag carries no obligation to review new articles, so I'm not asking you to help out at New Page Patrol if you don't want to, just to request the flag.
Of course, if it is something you would be interested in, you can have a look at the NPP tutorial. Please mention that you are an active AfC reviewer in your application.
Cheers and thanks for helping out at AfC, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Conflation of Nav/Rusalka into Boginka

Hey,

Hope you're doing well. Just wanted to let you know that the user Eckhardt Etheling has tried to merge the article Nav (Slavic folklore) into Boginka too, just like what they did with Rusalka. Seems like they want to convert all somewhat related existing articles into their own new one - under some obscure term. Just thought I'd let you know in case they keep trying this with those two or other pages, I'm not very active on Wikipedia lately.

Pozdrawiam,
--Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not trying to merge articles in those done by me. Just, what is the meaning of keeping poorly sourced articles like Rusalka (which has a lot of unsourced information and I have verified that even some sourced parts do not report what sources actually say) and Mavka (which is just a dialectal variant of Navia/Navka)? They are both variants of the Nymph-like beings called Boginka.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Eckhardt Etheling: They are both variants of the Nymph-like beings called Boginka -- who says so? In any case, please follow wikipedia rules: place the merge tag an wait for discussion. BTW, I know the mythology articles are disaster and I welcome your efforts, but we have disagreements to resolve. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hello Staszek Lem. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia; if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Propaganda

Thank you for the AfD and the plug on the 'Wehrmacht myth' op-ed at SS Marschiert AfD. Check out the comments too: Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-04-26/Op-ed; they are…illuminating. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

"not a competition"

Hello. Here in this part of the sentence which you removed, I didn't imply it was a competition, and Kacprzyk came sixth, but that the other five winners of the award were those listed, willing to add some context for the reader (given that some of these names are blue links). I don't insist on mentioning these names, I'm simply clarifying the idea behind them. Also, I will add the inline citations at my earliest convenience, this is a rather easy task: I spent much more time on finding the rest of the sources, different from the own homepage. :) Bests, →Spiritia 09:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Spiritia: OK. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Contiguity

Hello Staszek Lem. I see that you've changed Contiguity into a disambiguation page. Several articles link to that title. I've fixed the ones I could, but that leaves about 100 wikilinks leading to a dab rather than directly to an article. Most of them are about land contiguity (not covered by Contiguous zone) but there are a few other topics such as computer memory (not covered in Contiguous data storage; maybe Fragmentation (computing)?) and genetics. Please can you help us to fix the links? Thanks, Certes (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Certes:. OK. I will take a dig into it. Fragmentation (computing) is a better redirect for "Contiguous data storage". If there is no article on specfic kind of "contiguity" and you cannot write it right away, IMO it is better just delink the term, since it is a rather generic one. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

PS. I noticed somewhere the term is likely misused, such as in Gawthorpe (ward). Staszek Lem (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Sir William Coates, 1st Baronet

Please see WP:BARONET. Baronets are an exception to the rule about "sir" in article titles, as William Coates, 1st Baronet would be utterly incorrect. Note that the title is only added at all if disambiguation is required. If it was not, the article would simply be at William Coates. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

ACK. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

A project for you

Could you look at this editor's edits, including the article they created?[1] As you can see from their edit summaries, they have rather strong feelings and antagonisms. After an initial block by NeilN and warnings by Drmies and a very stern one from me (do see their talk page), including a DS alert, they returned from their block unchanged. I don't trust anything they've done. They probably aren't all wrong, but I know that they are ignoring academic disputes on various of the issues they are dealing with and treating their beliefs as absolutely correct. If you don't have time perhaps you can suggest someone else who could. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

Hello Lembit Staan, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

• Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

• A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

• There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

• Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

• Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
• The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Red links

A pop-up window warning me no to use red links appeared while I was editing a page on en.wiki. However it seems it's not an accepted policy by the community, so just ignore my edits. Best regards.--Carnby (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Lembit Staan, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

• As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
• Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: . Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: , , , .
• Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Reverts in human nature

I am not sure what your concern is, either in a policy sense or any other. There are two sources named, and I think there is no disputing, anyway, that what they say (which is quite simple and very well-known) is uncontroversial and notable. You are right that it is vague, but it is obviously a stub section that eventually needs to be expanded. Keep in mind you are deleting a whole section. I think the policy logic has to be that used for article stubs. I propose that the correct tagging should be on that basis and the material restored for some future editor to build up more. But also I intend to post on the talk page and I propose that the main discussion should be there. Please explain any concerns there.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

Please stop reverting factual information, and instead putting in place information that can be inferred to suggest that Mr. Lem did see the 2002 film. Also, your edit summary is false and uncivil; it is not "original research" to state a fact. IF you have evidence that he saw the film, present it on the talk page. Do not add content that clearly implies that Mr. Lem saw the film later. Anastrophe (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Anastrophe: This is possibly my inadequate knowledge of English. In my language "doing something before seeing" means "doing without seeing" and does not imply the he saw it later. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps that is it. 'Before' means 'previous to X'. So 'previous to seeing the film', which implies having seen it later. It is the potential for inference tht was the problem. Anastrophe (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Your version of the article says "there is no evidence". A wikipedian cannot possibly know all possible evidence, therefore this is original research. This logical trap has been discussed in Wikipedia countless times. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree, it was inaccurate. At best it should have read 'we don't know if Lem ever saw the film, however...' - but even that is imprecise. Your new version is best. Anastrophe (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your new edit. It is superior to both your previous edit, and my edits. Anastrophe (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Superhuman

Thanks for cleaning up the page (I was the IP that copyedited the page back in July and August). 2A00:23C5:2E01:FB01:613B:5533:D014:9939 (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Racism in India and the Sardarji joke listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Racism in India and the Sardarji joke. Since you had some involvement with the Racism in India and the Sardarji joke redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Could you explain the vandalism regarding your edits on Longest Words?

It seems you specifically went after languages from countries that were formerly in the USSR or in some way affiliated, this also falls in line with your other edits.

Your excuse of removing them because of needed citations does not sit well considering you did not remove Russian and a slew of other languages which also needed citations that you had edited previously.

Furthermore asking for references to translated sentences is absurd as a dictionary will likely not exist with that specific word structure. You're not translating A to B, majority of languages have fairly extensive rules that a single dictionary will not translate properly unless it goes into detail for very specific instances. Furthermore one citation missing does not justify the deletion of whole sections. What however does justify that is your track record of vandalism and your rampant excuse of "Well in my language..".

Please revert the changes or submit a valid reason.

90.191.143.170 (talk) 09:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

1. Please read and understand policy WP:VANDALISM. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
2. Please discuss article content in article talk pages, where other editors may express their opinion on the problems you think exist. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
3. Of course Wikipedia is encyclopedia which anyone can edit. But if you want to talk to people, not just edit, please get yourself an account or at least a fixed IP. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC):

How about you read the page yourself, furthermore you have avoided dicsussion in said pages and have a history of copypasting the vandalism page without understanding what it means, own up to your actions and revert the changes or explain your changes. You've been repeatedly informed and ordered to stop vandalising pages. If there is an error in a large section, You do not delete the whole section. You delete the sentence that has insufficent reference material. This is after atleast attempting to contact the individual who had submitted said sentence. Which you have not done, if I get another copypaste response then I surely hope you realize I will not stop. 90.191.143.170 (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Then go on your respective version of wikipedia since english is something you struggle with. 90.191.143.170 (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:TerraCycle

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:TerraCycle. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Machine Intelligence Research Institute

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Very energetic, but...

I'm wondering if you are not going too fast.

You create a page.

Then you move the page to correct the name.

Then you add the new name to an article.

Then you add the old name to another article.

And again.

Then create a page adding the new name.

Meanwhile, back at the original article, it still has the old name inside.

This also has me wondering... You created a redirect just so you could use it in a piped link, when you could have just used a piped link to the correct destination? I understand you were trying to distinguish between "The Catholic Church" (the religious organization) and "the Catholic church" (the building), but I'm just not so sure creating every possible redirect is a good thing. (That has been a problem for other editors at other times (they created 1000s) so I try to avoid that)

Maybe slow down a little bit and recheck some edits? Shenme (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Shenme:Er. No. I am not paid, so I will work at my own pace.

• Andrey and Andrei are equally valid transliterations from Russian used in WP: All pages with titles beginning with Andrey All pages with titles beginning with Andrei. I moved Andrey Volos to Andrei Volos because I noticed this name is already used in Wikipedia. (I should have checked this before creating an article -- a hindsight wisdom) I have other things in my life rather than to observe petty consistency. Sometimes I enforce it myself when I am in the pedantry mood, but I will not loose my sleep over Andrey. I created his article solely because of [2].
• You say you understand I wanted to distinguish organization from building, now it remains for you to understand that references to "church building" are used in wp:articles quite often. On the other hand it took me a non-zero time to find proper redirect target. It was not even in disambig page. Hence my redirect is convenient. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Greenwich Mean Time

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Greenwich Mean Time. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018

Hello Lembit Staan, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.

Project news

• The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.

As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.

• There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination#Coordinator tasks for more info to see if you can help out.

Other

• A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.

Moving to Draft and Page Mover

• Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
• If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
• Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
• The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js^(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
• The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.

List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing

Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget. In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions. MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues. User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page) User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50). User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you. User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link. User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion. User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Triss

Recently, I noticed your reversion of my edit to this article, which was deletion of the word ‘fortunately’. Apparently, you said that the Manual of Style doesn’t apply because it was part of a plot summary. Interestingly, in this instance, use of ‘fortunately’ editorializes by implying to Wikipedia readers who the good guys and bad guys are in the story. Additionally, as somebody who likes to root for the bad guys, I also think that its use also violates NPOV. Additionally, and purely from the grammatical perspective, it’s a dangling participle, and should be deleted for that reason alone, the same way that the first word in every sentence of this paragraph should be deleted.

Please reconsider your reversion, or maybe even better, rephrase the sentence to avoid the use of 'fortunately'. Perhaps something like 'The Skipper of Otters and Log-a-Log Groo rescue them, and bring a golden pawring with strange markings', which also makes the sentence active voice instead of passive.

Regards,

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ira Leviton:

(a) It is not a dangling participle; it is not a participle at all

(b) Dangling particles are not deleted; they are rewritten.

(c) The whole "Plot" section is one HUGE editorializing of the book by a wikipedian. MOS:PLOT and a bunch of essays cover the subject.

(d) If there are good guys and bad guys in the story, then a wikipedian does not 'imply' this, xe makes it clear, i.e., faithfully covers the story, just like in "brave squirrelmaid Triss", "his cruel daughter, Kurda" etc., etc. So, unless you have reasons to believe that the rescue was unfortunate, "fortunately" is a faithful summary of how it happened.

(e) The sentence has a larger problem than that: "rescued" - from what? But without reading the book one can hardly fix this. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Time series database

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Time series database. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Putinversteher for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Putinversteher is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putinversteher until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

1RR for ARBPIA

Hello, you violated the 1RR for Arab-Israeli conflict articles. The rule specifies that when your edit is reverted you must wait at least 24 hours to re-revert it. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction where it says If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit. Please self-revert or you may be reported. nableezy - 15:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, this. nableezy - 15:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

@Nableezy: Thanks for letting me know. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Np, thank you for self-reverting. nableezy - 03:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Monsanto

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Monsanto. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Re: Hanlon

The applicable guideline is WP:NLIST. A subject must either have an existing bio, or you must show with reliable sources cited, that the subject unambiguously qualifies to have a bio. You have not shown this. Mere mentions in related articles is not sufficient. I realize things were not always interpreted this closely, but with the growth of Wikipedia and especially since the onset of SEO, it is now. And unfortunately, even with subjects where SEO is likely not a factor, like this, strict interpretation of the guideline is the norm. If you wish to make an IAR argument at the article talk, I'd encourage you to do so. John from Idegon (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of cognitive biases

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of cognitive biases. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of missing aircraft

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of missing aircraft. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Lembit Staan, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal

• There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
• Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!

Project updates

• ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
• There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.

New scripts

• User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js^(info) — A new script created for quickly placing {{copyvio-revdel}} on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

deletions at Combinatorial species

Hi Staszek, I left a note at Talk:Combinatorial species about your recent deletions. Could you please comment? Thank you, Noamz (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peter Harrison (historian), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Western values (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Lembit Staan,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW

• Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.

If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.

We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.

With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Staszek Lem. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Gymnophobia

Please do not replace long-standing articles with redirects without due process as you did with Gymnophobia. "Not a thing" is clearly not a valid rationale in this case, and your actions bear a strong resemblance to vandalism. Rklawton (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Rklawton: It was not me. Apologies for baseless accusation in vandalism accepted. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

PS. from history I noticed Jytdog block. A yet another sad example of a remarkable wikipedian getting a feeling of omnipotence and righteousness. As I see it started quite some time ago. I did have a couple interactions. While he had reasonable points he did come as a ton of bricks, so I just WP:DGAF him. 19:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

You'd think I'd know how to look at diffs by now. At any rate, you do have my sincerest apologies. Rklawton (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018

Hello Lembit Staan,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.

Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.

Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Request

Can you please review this Wikipedia page? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ODEM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff at ODEM (talk • contribs) 08:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)